Montclair State University

Montclair State University Digital

Commons

Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects

1-2021

Octavia E. Butler’s Dawn and “Bloodchild” : From Human to

Posthuman
Nicole Fields
Montclair State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd

Part of the English Language and Literature Commons

Recommended Citation
Fields, Nicole, "Octavia E. Butler’s Dawn and “Bloodchild” : From Human to Posthuman" (2021). Theses,
Dissertations and Culminating Projects. 680.
https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd/680

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Montclair State University Digital Commons. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects by an authorized administrator of
Montclair State University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@montclair.edu.
 Fields 1

Abstract

Octavia Butler authored many science fiction novels and short stories, almost all of which

have been associated with race and/or slavery. I argue that two of her works, Dawn and

“Bloodchild,” are not specifically about race and can be approached from a posthuman

perspective. I discuss the place of black literature in the Western Literary tradition, and I

highlight the literary reception of Butler’s work. Since her novels and short stories have been

compared to slavery, which I argue against, I point out the disparity between the lives of the

characters in Butler’s texts and historical accounts of the slave experiences.

In this paper, I rely on the definition of Philosophical Posthumanism, as explained by

Francesca Ferrando. Furthermore, I utilize this component of posthumanism from which to

approach both texts, since the theory is inclusive of post-anthropocentrism and post-dualism,

both of which are relevant to my critique of the humanistic tradition of Othering and setting

strict, dualistic binaries to which humans conform.

 Fields 2

MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY

Octavia E. Butler’s Dawn and “Bloodchild” : From Human to Posthuman

by
Nicole Fields
A Master’s Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of
Montclair State University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
Master of Arts
January 2021

College of Humanities and Social Sciences Thesis Committee:

Department of English
Thesis Sponsor - Laura Nicosia

Committee Member - Jeffrey Gonzalez

Committee Member - Fawzia Afzal-Khan

 Fields 3

Octavia E. Butler’s Dawn and “Bloodchild” : From Human to Posthuman

A THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Arts

by

Nicole Fields

Montclair State University

Montclair, NJ

2020
 Fields 4

Copyright c 2020 by Nicole Fields. All rights reserved.

 Fields 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………… 6
2. Literary Reception of Bulter’s Writings ………………………………………………… 7
3. Metaphors for Slavery in Dawn and “Bloodchild” ……………………………………… 11
4. Posthumanism …………………………………………………………………………… 15
5. Dualism and Anthropocentrism in Dawn ……………………………………………….. 19
6. From Human to Posthuman in Dawn …………………………………………………… 24
7. Symbiosis and Gender in “Bloodchild” ………………………………………………… 26
8. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………… 35
9. Works Cited …………………………………………………………………………….. 36
 Fields 6

Introduction

Since the days of slavery, Black Americans have had to employ writing as a tool in order

to fight for freedom and civil rights. Hence, much of the earliest writings of Black Americans

functioned to humanize the African and to describe the barbarity of the institution of slavery.

Early black authors did not have the privilege to focus their writings on topics other than

systemic racism, for writing was a revolutionary tool used by Black Americans during slavery to

fight against the institution. Because legalized, racial oppression lasted for centuries, black

authors have written about it and continued to address its aftermath. The consequence is that

blackness becomes the signifier of race and of slavery; in turn, critics often approach black

literature through a lens that does not allow for any other interpretation, except that of a

metaphorical slave narrative, as in the case of Octavia E. Butler’s fiction.

In reading criticism on Butler’s Dawn (1987) and “Bloodchild” (1984), I find that readers

interpret most, if not all, of her works as slave narratives. Although Butler examines race in

many of her writings, these two texts do not seem to focus on racial oppression. However, the

slave narrative is attached to Butler’s stories, anyway. It seems that most of Butler’s literature

has been read through a singular modality because of her race. I propose that instead of

challenging one system of oppression, such as slavery, racism or colonialism, Butler dismantles

dichotomies, such as master/slave, masculine/feminine, us/them, human/nonhuman and the

dualistic logic that contributes to those binaries. There is a difference between that which

challenges racial oppression and that which disrupts the dialectic upon which systems of

oppression are constructed. The works on which I focus are more about the decentering of the

human and interspecies symbiosis than about racial oppression. I explore the reception of

Butler’s works and how blackness has been the signifier of difference and of slavery, thereby,
 Fields 7

situating her texts within a binary in which they are Othered and reduced to one mode of

analysis. In what follows, I examine Butler’s works through the lens of posthumanism to

illuminate how her texts disrupt anthropocentrism and dualism via interspecies symbiosis.

Literary Reception of Butler’s Writings

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. comments on the position of race in literature when he writes:

the question of the place of texts written by the Other (be that odd metaphorical

negation of the European defined as African, Arabic, Chinese, Latin American,

Yiddish, or female authors) in the proper study of “literature,” “Western

Literature,” or “comparative literature” has . . . remained an unasked question,

suspended or silenced by a discourse in which the canonical and noncanonical

stand as the ultimate opposition. (2)

The commentary above discusses the role that race plays in Western Literature. Texts written by

the Other have been automatically placed in categories, which are suggestive of difference when

juxtaposed to canonical works. Since this has been the practice, Butler’s literature is already

situated in a tradition where her texts are Othered, and the history of Butler’s blackness is

attached to her narratives.

Gates explains the history of the categorization of black literature in the following

excerpt:

Writing stood as a complex “certificate of humanity” as Paulin Hountonji put it.

Black writing, and especially the literature of the slave, served not to obliterate

the difference of race; rather, the inscription of the black voice in Western

literatures has preserved those very cultural differences to be repeated, imitated,

 Fields 8

and revised in a separate Western literary tradition, a tradition of black difference.

(12)

Thus, when the word “black” precedes the word “literature,” it automatically signifies difference.

I find this signification of difference problematic because it reduces the black narrative to a story

of racial oppression, thereby, maintaining oppositional binaries that situate blackness as the

historical Other within the context of Western literature. Such binaries encourage literary

approaches that limit Butler and her diverse narratives to critical analyses that illuminate the

black experience as it relates to whiteness. Because of the history of slavery and the dichotomies

in which blacks exist, readers traditionally approach black texts through a lens of difference and

Otherness, which can obscure interpretations that extend beyond race, as in the case of Butler.

For example, in an interview with Charlie Rose that aired on PBS in the year 2000, Rose

asked Butler if she was trying to create a “new black mythology” in reference to Parable of the

Sower and Parable of the Talents, and he asked her if she wanted to say anything “essential”

about race. Butler replied that she was not trying to create a new black mythology, and her reply

about any commentary that she may have had on race was, “Hey, we’re here” (Butler/Rose Part

1). Rose’s question was in reference to the religion of Earthseed, which is a creation by Lauren

Olamina, the main character of those texts. Earthseed is a religion that is rooted in the survival of

all humanity, not just one race of humans. Furthermore, Earthseed does not establish any sort of

race-based ideology. Butler confirms this when she says that both books are an autobiography of

a “fictional character who creates a new religion and sets humanity’s feet on a different path”

(Butler/Rose Part 1). Rose’s reference to a black mythology was the result of his attempt to

compare Earthseed to Greek mythology. In his narrow perception of Butler’s stories, Rose did
 Fields 9

not address Butler’s statement about setting humanity on a different path because he did not

perceive the text outside of the black/white dichotomy.

In a 1996 interview, Butler discussed racial themes in her novels and short stories with

Stephen W. Potts. In reference to “Bloodchild,” Butler stated, “But so many critics have read this

as a story about slavery, probably just because I am black.” Butler goes on to say that “the only

places I am writing about slavery is where I actually say so.” Potts mentioned Kindred, and

Butler confirmed that he was correct. She also mentioned other books that are about race, such as

Mind of My Mind and Wild Seed (Butler/ Potts 1996). These two examples display how Butler’s

writings have been mostly categorized as stories of racial oppression, whether the texts invite

such readings or not.

In an analysis of “Bloodchild,” Elyce Rae Helford wrote that her “reading of

‘Bloodchild’ through metaphors of slavery would not necessarily sit well with Butler” (265). She

explains that she “can sympathize with a resistance to having all of one’s novels and short stories

reduced to explorations of enslavement.” Nonetheless, Helford argues that a “reencoding of race,

whether as part of a metaphor for enslavement or ‘symbiosis,’ replaces a former philosophical

and cultural tradition of denial of race issues” (266). Helford’s interpretive practice conforms to

the Western literary tradition of placing black literature in a separate category, in which “black”

is automatically Othered and indicative of the history of enslavement. In doing so, Helford views

the symbiotic relationship between the T’lic and the Terran as an indirect metaphor for slavery,

when it can be viewed as a story of symbiosis that rejects anthropocentrism and heteronormative,

gender binaries. The characters also have racially ambiguous names, which appears to be an

effort on the part of the author to divert attention away from race.
 Fields 10

Similarly, many critics also read Dawn as a slave narrative, even though there is no racial

oppression in the plot. In an essay written by Cathy Peppers, the author compares Lilith’s

awakening in Dawn to the slave experience of the Middle Passage (51). She also refers to Lilith

as “Butler’s African American Lilith,” and she goes on to say that Dawn is a “re-creation of the

black woman’s ‘choice’ under slavery . . .” (50). This statement is an indication of how the most

subtle mention of race signifies slavery. In Dawn, Butler uses skin complexion as a descriptive

element. For example, the first time that the color of Lilith’s skin is mentioned is when the

narrator describes a young boy, Sharad, who was placed in a room with Lilith. Sharad had “long,

straight black hair and smoky-brown skin, paler than her [Lilith’s] own” (Butler 10). Another

example of a reference to skin complexion is when Lilith meets Paul Titus, “a human being –

tall, stocky, as dark as she was, clean shaved” (85). The descriptions of the people of color do not

seem to have any other function, except that of writing brown characters into existence. An

author cannot create a black heroine without describing her complexion.

I highlight the references of Butler’s stories to slavery because I want to exhibit how

Butler’s race influences the reception of her work by various readers, specifically the works that

do not explicitly allude to racial oppression or slavery. I do not wish to make the point that

readers should not or cannot approach Butler’s texts as slave narratives, but “it is worth insisting

. . . that attacking the abuses of something is not the same thing as dismissing or entirely

destroying that thing” (Said 13). In other words, Butler’s work should not be interpreted as

stories of enslavement simply because she is black.

 Fields 11

Metaphors for Slavery in Dawn and “Bloodchild”

Readers use metaphors as tools for their interpretations of Dawn and “Bloodchild” as

stories of racial oppression; however, the metaphors do not seem representative of the slave

experience. In “‘To Live and Reproduce, Not Die’: Surrogacy and Maternal Agency in Octavia

Butler’s Dawn,” Marlo D. David writes,

Lilith’s confining and disorienting imprisonment at the beginning of Dawn parallels the

African experience during the Middle Passage, which also bears striking parallels to a

number of other narratives within the genres of science fiction and speculative fiction. In

doing so, Butler maintains readers’ awareness that the unfolding story has a racial

dimension that should not be ignored, even if it is not explicitly invoked. (124)

The beginning of Dawn does not seem to resemble or allude to the experience of the Middle

Passage. Lilith’s awakening is as follows:

She sat up swayed dizzily, then turned to look at the rest of the room.

The walls were light-colored – white or gray, perhaps. The bed was what it had

always been: a solid platform that gave slightly to the touch and that seemed to

grow from the floor. There was, across the room, a doorway that probably led to a

bathroom. She was usually given a bathroom. Twice she had not been, and in her

windowless, doorless cubicle, she had been forced simply to choose a corner.

She went to the doorway, peered through the uniform dimness, and satisfied

herself that she did, indeed, have a bathroom. This one had not only a toilet and a

sink, but a shower. Luxury.

What else did she have?

 Fields 12

Very little. There was another platform perhaps a foot higher than the bed. . . .

And there were things on it. She saw the food first. (Butler, Dawn 5-6)

While awakening in a foreign place amongst a foreign species is traumatic, Lilith’s experience

does not share in the violence and inhumanity of, for instance, Olaudah Equiano’s experience on

a slave ship. Lilith awakens in a clean space with food on a table-like object. Her environment

indicates that whomever confined her to the room means for her to be comfortable and healthy.

She does not share the space with other people, and she is not made to sit in her feces and urine

because she has a bathroom. There were instances when she did not have a toilet, but the ship

absorbs waste. Therefore, she does not experience unsanitary conditions. The accommodations in

Lilith’s suite are humane compared to the vessel in which Africans were constricted.

Equiano, renamed Gustavas Vassa, was a Nigerian, who was sold into slavery at a young

age and later wrote an autobiography from which he described his temporary residency on a

slave ship in the following passages:

I was soon put down under the decks, and there I received such a salutation in my nostrils

as I have never experienced in my life: so that, with the loathsomeness of the stench, and

crying together, I became so sick and low that I was not able to eat, nor had I the least

desire to taste anything. I now wished for the last friend, death, to relieve me; but soon, to

my grief, two of the white men offered me eatables; and on my refusing to eat, one of

them held me fast by the hands, and laid me across, I think, the windlass, and tied my

feet, while the other flogged me severely. . . . (Great Slave 28)

Even though both experiences take place on a foreign ship without the consent of those taken,

the metaphor does not compare in brutality to the actual experience of the Middle Passage. While

the humans in Dawn are saved from a war-torn, uninhabitable Earth, caused by human
 Fields 13

destruction, the Africans were stolen from a very fruitful and productive culture. Africans were

not in danger of starving or dying, and they were stolen specifically for exploitation, not

preservation. There was no mutual benefit between the slave traders and the slaves. Despite the

pecuniary benefit of selling slaves, many died during transport because of the poor conditions on

the ship. Slave traders would transport about 700 slaves and arrive to their destination with only

372 of the Africans initially forced onto the ship (Franklin and Moss Jr. 45). “The filth and

stench caused by close quarters and disease brought on more illness, and the mortality rate

increased accordingly” on slave ships (45). However, the humans that are saved on the Oankali

ship are preserved and relieved of their health problems. The only likeness that exists between

Lilith on the Oankali ship and Africans on a slave ship is the color of Lilith’s skin.

David also suggests that Lilith’s position as teacher is reminiscent of slavery and

motherhood when she writes, “Dawn provides an imaginative opportunity to extend the slave

narrative tradition by reorienting the largely male voices of prominent enslaved writers . . .

toward the concerns of black women, specifically their reproductive exploitation” (David 130).

Again, the comparison of slavery to Lilith’s experience does not seem reminiscent or even

implicitly similar. The details of Sojourner Truth’s life shed light on the horrors of slavery for

black women.

In the introduction of the Narrative of Sojourner Truth, Margaret Washington

summarizes Sojourner Truth’s early life as a slave:

Separation from her parents was the beginning of young Isabella’s trials in the

Narrative. The first of many beatings came from her second owners, who were

vexed by her inability to speak English [Truth spoke Dutch]. . . . Within two years,

Isabella [Truth] was transferred three times. She grew to womanhood on John I.
 Fields 14

Dumont’s New Paltz farm, where she often did the work of at least two people. She was a

field hand, milkmaid, cleaning woman, weaver, cook, and wet nurse.” (Narrative xiv-xv)

The duties of a female slave rendered no benefit to the black woman. Whereas, the work that

Lilith is assigned is beneficial to the humans and the Oankali. Lilith’s work is explained to her by

Kahguyaht when it tells her that her duty is to “teach, to give comfort, to feed, and clothe . . . and

interpret what will be, for them [humans], a new and frightening world” (Butler 111). The

Oankali assign Lilith the position of teacher, where she is tasked with helping to acclimate the

rest of the humans to the conditions on the ship and persuading them to learn how to survive on

the new Earth, which will not have all of the conveniences that existed before its destruction.

When readers use Lilith’s experience as a metaphor for slavery, they often omit the

violence that slaves regularly suffered at the hands of their oppressors, as is described in the

following excerpt:

One Sunday morning, in particular, she [Truth] was told to go to the barn; on

going there, she found her master with a bundle of rods, prepared in the embers,

and bound together with cords. When he had tied her hands together before her,

he gave her the most cruel whipping she was ever tortured with. He whipped her

till the flesh was deeply lacerated, and the blood streamed from her wounds. . . .

(Narrative 15)

In addition to the labor and violence that female slaves experienced, they were not allowed to

mother their children. Labor was the priority. Therefore, Truth, like many other black women,

resorted to creative ways of tending to her children while working in the fields by placing “her

infant in a basket, tying a rope to each handle, and suspending the basket to a branch of the tree”

(Narrative 25). Furthermore, black women were dehumanized to the point where the “rape of a
 Fields 15

female slave was regarded as a crime but only because it involved trespassing” (Franklin and

Moss Jr. 141).

As I have depicted above, Lilith’s experience among the Oankali shares very little

resemblance to that of a black, female slave. Her experience is absent the violence and denial of

personhood and motherhood that female slaves experienced. Also, there is no reproductive

exploitation in Dawn. Lilith will not be separated from her offspring, and her children will not be

exploited by the Oankali for labor. Reading Dawn as a narrative that parallels the lives of black

women during slavery minimizes the brutality of racial oppression. It attaches the history of the

black, female slave to Lilith simply because of her complexion, thereby, limiting the text to one

analytical approach. Moreover, the relationship that the Oankali have with the humans is not that

of master/slave. It is symbiotic and of mutual benefit to both species.

Posthumanism

Dawn and “Bloodchild” are texts that do not only critique one form of oppression, but

challenge the dialectic from which systems of oppression are employed. The works are not so

much about race as they are about the system that creates dichotomies and promotes oppression.

Both texts dismantle dualisms and disrupt the notion of anthropocentrism via symbiotic

relationships between humans and another species. Approaching the works as posthuman texts

serves to disrupt dualistic relationships while offering alternative ways of being human. The

following passage further explains this idea of posthumanism:

It [posthumanism]does not rely on oppositions, but can be appointed as an empirical

philosophy of mediation, which offers a reconciliation of existence in its broadest

significations. It does not employ any frontal dualism or antithesis, demystifying

 Fields 16

ontological polarizations through the postmodern practice of deconstruction. (Ferrando

ch.10)

As posthuman texts, both stories decenter the hierarchical constructs of the human by

challenging the “cultural logic of universal Humanism,” in which “Otherness is defined as its

negative and specular counterpart” (Braidotti 15). In Humanism and Democratic Criticism,

Edward Said wrote that his “issue within the discourse of humanism is of an epistemological

cast. It derives from a supposed opposition between what is designated as traditional and

canonical and the unwelcome interventions of the new . . .” (22-3). It is the logic of humanism

that categorizes black literature as other and confines it within the traditional, humanistic binary.

Butler’s texts actually critique and challenge the humanistic dialectic upon which

oppositional binaries such as black/white, man/woman, oppressed/oppressor, and

masculine/feminine are constructed with the introduction of the Oankali, a three-gender species.

By creating a necessity for humans to merge with the Oankali, Butler challenges traditional,

human gender norms that usually exist as strict, dual opposites of each other, as in the case of the

male/female genders. Introducing humans to a third gender, the ooloi that is neither male nor

female, complicates the human notion of gender, which is delineated when Lilith wonders how

“did these people manage their sex lives . . . How did the ooloi fit in?” (Butler 51). Lilith’s

confusion with the ooloi is a symptom of the gender binaries that humans create. Such dualistic

logic is the system that is responsible for oppression.

Butler implies, through her critique of humanism, that the dialectic of racism, sexism, and

gender oppression must be dismantled in order to save humanity. Such critique is illustrated

when Jdahya, a member of the Oankali species, tells Lilith that ‘You are hierarchical. . . . We

saw it in your closest animal relatives and in your most distant ones’ (Butler 39). Jdahya’s
 Fields 17

statement conveys that humans create hierarchies that lead to conflict within their own

population. The construction of hierarchies stem from the humanistic ideology that there is a

standard human being from which all others are to compare or attempt to emulate. The Oankali

challenge this ideology because they are a different species, and they plan to procreate with

humans, which disrupts the standard notion of the human. An example of this is when Nikanj

informs Lilith that it made her pregnant with Joseph’s child. Lilith exclaims, “‘But it won’t be

human . . . It will be a thing. A monster.’” Even though Nikanj assures Lilith that the “‘child that

comes from your [Lilith’s] body will look like you and Joseph,’” Lilith does not believe it (247).

This indicates that interspecies procreation is not acceptable to humans because the offspring

may resemble another species, thereby, rendering the child nonhuman. However, the Oankali

offer humans a different existence, one that relies on the pluralistic idea of the human.

Interspecies symbiosis decenters the human in relation to the nonhuman and is a critique

of the “dualism that has been employed as a rigid way to define identity” (Ferrando ch.10).

Therefore, the human characters must relate to a nonhuman species as equals instead of beings

that are ranked lower than them in a human-constructed hierarchy. This entails reciprocating

services and accepting a different species as mates and family members, which deconstructs

oppositional thinking and proves to be very difficult for the human characters.

The definition of posthumanism from which I approach the text is explained by

Francesca Ferrando as a post-humanism, a post-anthropocentrism, and a post-dualism. She

further defines the theoretical approach in the following statement:

Posthumanism implies the understanding of the plurality of the human

experience; the human is not recognized as one but as many, that is human(s) –

thus undermining the humanist tradition based on a generalized and universalized

 Fields 18

approach to the human. Post-anthropocentrism refers to decentering the human in

relation to the nonhuman; it is based on the realization that the human species has

been placed in a hierarchical scale and has been granted an ontological privilege

in the large majority of the historical accounts on the human. Post-dualism relies

on the awareness that dualism has been employed as a rigid way to define

identity, based on a closed notion of the self and actualized in symbolic dichotomies,

such as ‘us/them,’ ‘friend/foe,’ ‘civilized/barbarian,’ and so on. (ch.10)

As the definition depicts above, posthumanism is an all-encompassing analytical approach,

which is why I chose it for Dawn and “Bloodchild.” Both texts examine human/nonhuman

relationships, gender, and dualistic binaries, all of which can be challenged by the components of

posthumanism. The theory invites a discourse on artificial life, which speculates on the

embodiment of life or lack thereof. It questions the concept of life and whether it can exist on a

molecular level within cellular automata. Where embodied life is concerned, posthumanism

defines the “human,” and it recognizes that some people have not been considered human. In

turn, the philosophical approach redefines the human in plural terms and welcomes a variety of

the human species into the sphere of the post-human, which is a progressive human, but still

human. Such examination of the human condition allows for the inclusivity of different races,

sexes, genders, religious affiliations, and sexualities into the posthuman realm, which is an

extension of the human and a reorientation to the human condition.

Where animal life is concerned in relation to the human, posthumanism critiques the

treatment of animals in a way that decenters the human and dismantles any oppositions which

humans construct between animal and human. The “human experience” of the animal does not

inform us about the animal, “but about the formulation of human systems of knowledge”
 Fields 19

(Ferrando ch. 13). The theory also examines the dualistic logic that contributes to discrimination

and the hierarchies that are created by the human. Such examination is inclusive of other schools

of thought, such as critical race theory, postcolonial studies, feminism, and postmodernism, to

name a few. It is because of the multiplicity of approaches within the umbrella of posthumanism

that I chose to use it as a theoretical apparatus for analyzing Butler’s texts. The approach is just

as futuristic and hybrid as Dawn and “Bloodchild.”

Dualism and Anthropocentrism in Dawn

On the subject of anthropocentrism, Ferrando states that the “centrality of the human

implies a sense of separation and individuation of the human from the rest of the beings”

Ferrando ch. 19). In Dawn, Butler illuminates the anthropocentric thinking patterns that humans

exhibit when they encounter beings that are different. After a 250-year sleep that was induced by

the Oankali, Lilith awakens on a space ship and encounters Jdahya, an Oankali male, for the first

time. She is unable to look at his physical appearance without fear and repulsion. Her reaction is

evoked by the unlikeliness of his body to the human body. Throughout the encounter, Lilith tries

to find similarities to the human body when she observes that Jdahya seems to be a “tall, slender

man . . .” with “no bulge, no nostrils . . .” yet “still humanoid” (Butler 13). Lilith perceives

Jdahya’s appearance through comparisons of how different or similar he is to humans. She asks

Jdahya if he is male or female, and he tells her that he is male. Lilith’s reaction is, “Good. ‘It’

could become ‘he’ again. Less awkward” (13). Even after Lilith is comforted by knowing the sex

of Jdahya, she still does “not want to be any closer to him” because of “his difference, his literal

unearthliness” (13). When Jdahya tells Lilith that the Oankali rescued all of the survivors of the

war, Lilith looks away because she is disgusted by his tentacle-like sensory organs. Once Lilith
 Fields 20

gains the courage to look at Jdahya again, he tells her that humans have tried to kill him during

some of the first encounters. Through the repulsion exhibited by Lilith and the humans that have

tried to kill Jdahya because of his difference, Butler uses her narrative to shed light on the human

“notion of ‘difference’ as pejoration” (Braidotti 15). Lilith’s disgust towards Jdahya represents

the humanistic attitude that all other beings are beneath that of the human, which also leads to the

construction of binaries that exist within oppositional relationships.

Historically, the concept of the human has consisted of many different categorizations

which have led to “exclusionary practices” such as sexism, racism, and homophobia, “along-side

other forms of discrimination,” that have defined the human (Ferrando intro.). Butler delineates

the dualistic binaries constructed by humans in various scenes throughout the text. When the

humans are awakened, Lilith is assigned the task of helping “them learn to deal with” the

Oankali and teaching the humans how to survive on the new Earth (Butler 32). However, the

humans exhibit violent behavior towards each other, and they forcibly encourage one another to

pair with the opposite sex. They also refer to the Oankali as their “captors,” which implies that

they perceive themselves to be prisoners (119,143). The dichotomy that the humans construct

between themselves and the Oankali contributes to the resistance and the violent behavior that

the humans exhibit towards their perceived nonhuman captors.

They also start re-creating the same binaries that existed on Earth amongst themselves.

For example, Lilith and Joseph are placed outside of the human category because Lilith is

perceived as a traitor to the human race in her role as teacher and liaison between the Oankali

and the humans. She is also excluded from the group because the Oankali enhance her physical

abilities so that she is capable of protecting herself from violent humans. Once Lilith defends

herself from an attack by Jean Pelerin, Jean starts telling the other members of the group that
 Fields 21

Lilith is a man because of her physical strength, and Van Weerden adds that he does not think

she is “human at all” (Butler 147). Since Joseph is Lilith’s intimate partner, he is excluded as

well. Joseph is also Chinese, and one of the humans does not like the “shape of his eyes” (159).

By pointing out Lilith and Joseph’s differences, the rest of the humans can justify excluding

them from the group. Once individuals are excluded from the human group, they occupy the

nonhuman position within the binary, which subjects them to hostile and inhumane treatment.

In addition to recreating dichotomies, Curt Loehr, one of the first males awakened,

perpetuates hierarchical behavior moments after he regains consciousness when he asks,

“‘Who’s in charge here?’” (Butler 141). This indicates that Curt wants to establish a system of

rank, and it also suggests that he is accustomed to operating within a particular social order that

places certain humans above others.

Once a certain number of humans are awakened, they begin to band together and adhere

to very similar human constructs that existed on Earth. They start to point out differences and to

force women to mate with men, which perpetuates the male/female dichotomy, where the male

exerts dominance over the female. An example of this dominance is when two men try to rape

Allison Zeigler because “she had not yet found a man she liked,” and she allied with Lilith.

During the attempted rape, there is a standoff between two groups of humans, the ones that want

to prevent the rape, and the ones that want to allow it to occur. In the course of the conflict, Curt

yells, “‘We pair off ! . . . One man, one woman’” (Butler 176). The rape demonstrates how

humans use dominance in order to reinforce heterosexuality, which functions within a

male/female binary. While resisting a merge with the Oankali, they begin to reconnect with strict

definitions of what it means to be human, and any behavior that is not consistent with traditional,

human constructs is met with aggression.

 Fields 22

The same hostility is displayed towards the ooloi, the neutral gender of the Oankali.

Instead of mating in male/female pairs, the Oankali have three-way relationships, where there is

a male, female, and a neutral sex. Such sexuality is inconsistent with human binaries, and it leads

Peter to physically attack his ooloi once he is no longer under the influence of the “ooloi-

produced” drugs because he thinks that his “manhood was taken away.” When Peter becomes

sober, he begins to think of his interactions with the ooloi as “profane” and “perverse,” which

leads him to strike his ooloi several times before the ooloi administers a deadly sting in defense

(Butler 192-3). Peter’s behavior suggests that there is no room for growth or change within

human constructed dichotomies, and that such constructs contribute to acts of violence and

attempts at dominance in the human group. His actions are also indicative of the strict gender

roles that humans have created for themselves and the unwillingness to unlearn such confining

ideas of sexuality, even though the humans enjoy experiencing pleasure from the oolois.

There is also a reluctance for the humans to acknowledge the neutral gender throughout

the narrative. When Lilith meets Paul Titus, he refuses to acknowledge Nikanj’s neutral gender

by referring to it as male. He explains to Lilith that he thinks of the ooloi as either male or female

(Butler 89). Joseph also refers to Nikanj as a male, despite Lilith’s attempts to correct him more

than once (170). Paul and Joseph’s behavior is a direct result of the rigid dichotomies in which

gender exists for humans and their failure to allow gender to exceed the strict, dualistic binaries,

such as man/woman.

Despite all of the efforts of the Oankali to preserve and to help humans survive, the

humans resist cohabitation with the nonhuman species. The Oankali have rescued humans from

death, healed their illnesses, and made Earth habitable again, yet they still have difficulty

accepting a mutually beneficial relationship with the Oankali because of the physical differences
 Fields 23

between the two species. Even though the ooloi provide intense sexual pleasure to the humans

and are a highly intelligent species, humans continue to fear the Oankali because of their

appearance. This fear is displayed when Joseph encounters Nikanj for the first time. He

expresses to Nikanj that he does not understand why he is so afraid and that Nikanj does not

‘look that threatening’ (Butler 186). Lilith also has moments of fear. Before she lies down to

have sex with Nikanj and Joseph, she sees a “totally alien being, grotesque, repellant beyond

mere ugliness with its night crawler body tentacles, its snake head tentacles, and its tendency to

keep both moving, signaling attention and emotion” (190). Joseph and Lilith’s response to the

ooloi indicate that the issue is the difference in appearance, not the inability to enjoy intimacy

with a different species. Moreover, they both perceive the ooloi within the human/nonhuman

dichotomy, which makes the ooloi aesthetically, undesirable because of its dissimilarity to the

human form.

Although Joseph enjoys intimacy with the Oankali, he struggles with his perceived

human identity, which he thinks should be very different from the Oankali. His attitude is

evident when he tells Lilith that he thinks Peter was right for trying to kill his ooloi, even though

he died in the process. He states, “‘He died human! And he Almost managed to take one of them

with him!’” (Butler 196). Joseph’s statement indicates that the humans think of themselves in

such opposition to the Oankali that they would rather die than to merge with another species.

Such is the dilemma that the human characters face in the text. They struggle with the concepts

of hybridity and plurality, which conflict with anthropocentrism. Lilith and Joseph’s reaction to

the foreign creature informs readers more about the human than the creature itself, for their

reaction is the result of “human systems of knowledge,” where hierarchies and dualism position

nonhuman creatures as the “antithesis of ‘man’ (Ferrando ch.13).

 Fields 24

From Human to Posthuman in Dawn

Though some may postulate that Dawn is a metaphor for slavery, I suggest that readers

closely focus on the role that the foreign creatures play in the lives of the human characters. For

if Dawn is a slave narrative, then the Oankali function as oppressors. However, there are various

details throughout the narrative that indicate a different role for the foreign species. For instance,

Jdahya explains to Lilith that the Oankali have a “symbiotic” relationship with the ship, in that it

serves their needs and they serve its needs. Lilith also asks if the ship is plant or animal, and he

tells her that the ship is “both and more” (Butler 35). The relationship that the Oankali share with

their environment is one of mutual benefit, and the life forms that exist on the ship, including the

ship, are of a hybrid nature. The Oankali are in the practice of preserving that from which they

benefit, unlike humans. Had humans practiced symbiosis, they would not have destroyed their

planet with war because they would have understood that all species and humans rely on one

another for survival.

Therefore, in order for the Oankali to merge with humans, they must introduce them to

the concepts of symbiosis, hybridity, and plurality, all of which require humans to redefine their

identity and to unlearn their “hierarchical” thinking patterns, which Jdahya has pointed out to

Lilith as a flaw in humans (Butler 39). The foreign species is already hybrid, since it is their

nature to blend with different life forms. Nikanj explains to Lilith that, “‘Six divisions ago . . .

we [Oankali] lived in great shallow oceans . . . We were many-bodied and spoke with body lights

and color patterns among ourself and among ourselves . . .’” (63). Their notion of being is

unconfined to a particular form, as explained by Nikanj. The idea of different selves is an

element of posthumanism that the humans must realize in order coexist with the Oankali. There
 Fields 25

is not only one way of experiencing a human existence, which is implied when Lilith asks

Jdahya if he thinks that destroying their culture will make them better. He states, “‘No. Only

different’” (34). This suggests that humans do not have to cease being human when change

occurs.

However, the idea of change frightens humans to the point where Peter attempted to kill

his ooloi because he thought that his identity had changed since his gratifying, sexual experience

with an ooloi. Curt was also driven to kill when he witnessed that Joseph, a human, had

enhanced healing capabilities. All of the violent acts exhibited by the terrestrials is a direct

reaction to their strict, unbending notions of human identity, which is the flaw that the Oankali

challenge.

Furthermore, Jdahya introduces Lilith to the idea that sex and gender can be plural.

During Lilith’s first encounter with Jdahya, she asks if he is male or female, and Jdahya replies

that it is “‘wrong to assume that I [Jdahya] must be a sex you’re [Lilith] familiar with’” (Butler

13). Lilith’s question is indicative of the binaries in which humans exist. On the contrary,

Jdahya’s response is post-dualistic in that it rejects the notion that there are only two genders and

implies that gender is fluid, along with sex and sexuality. Plurality and hybridity conflict with the

strict binaries in which humans confine themselves, which leads to their difficulty with accepting

diversity and difference, even within their own species, as is demonstrated throughout the text.

Butler juxtaposes the human with the posthuman by utilizing the Oankali to represent the

components of posthumanism in order to critique the humanistic dialectic from which humans

operate. The interactions between the foreign species and the terrestrials is a constant oscillation

between the human and the posthuman. The role of the Oankali appears to be that of a guide into

the posthuman sphere for the terrestrial characters.

 Fields 26

Symbiosis and Gender in “Bloodchild”

As in Dawn, the symbiotic elements in “Bloodchild” decenter the human via symbiosis

with the T’lic, and it “offers a speculative account of what life might be like for the billions of

domesticated animals whose lives and deaths are fully constrained by human economic and

effective circuits” (Magnone 109). Through the text, Butler suggests that humans re-evaluate

their treatment of domesticated animals by situating humans on another planet, where they are no

longer the dominant species. In addition, the narrative directs attention to the challenges that

humans confront in their relationship with the T’lic. Over the course of the story, the terms of a

parasitic relationship shift to a mutualistic relationship by way of symbiosis between humans and

nonhumans. In addition to decentering the human, Butler provokes a discourse on gender with

the introduction of the unconventional, performative gender of the T’lic female.

In “Bloodchild,” the humans, known as the Terran, have fled Earth, seeking refuge from

slavery and death. They reach another planet, where the dominant species, the T’lic, is a large,

worm-like insect that is highly intelligent. The T’lic must implant their larvae into an animal and

cut the offspring out of the host when the larvae grow to maturity. In exchange for habitancy on

the T’lic planet, the Terran are obligated to host T’lic eggs. After years of conflict and fighting,

the Terran and the T’lic have joined as family members and use humans, preferably males, to

host eggs so that human females may birth their own offspring. Gan, an adolescent, Terran male,

has been assigned the duty of hosting the eggs of T’Gatoi, their T’lic family member. The nature

of the relationship between the humans and the T’lic is one that decenters the human in relation

to the nonhuman because the Terran are obligated to reciprocate for their stay on the T’lic planet.

This changes the dynamics of the interactions that humans typically have with nonhuman
 Fields 27

species. As a result, the Terran exhibit resentment and conflicting feelings toward the T’lic

because the Terran are no longer at the top of any human-constructed hierarchies.

This behavior is displayed when Lien, Gan’s mother, says to T’Gatoi, “‘I should have

stepped on you when you were small enough’” (Butler, “Bloodchild” 7). Lien’s statement

functions as a reminder that insects like T’Gatoi were beneath humans on Earth and could be

exterminated for this reason. Within the human ranking system, “insects often suffer the status of

the particularly despised. Known as pests, vectors of disease, and figures of filth and decay,

insects are frequently figured in human . . . discourse as eminently alien and thus fundamentally

killable” (Magnone 111). Lien’s statement further suggests that her position within T’lic society

is in conflict with human constructed-hierarchies. However, human hierarchies do not exist in

T’lic world, and the Terran must live within a different social order than was practiced on Earth.

The issue that the Terran have with the T’lic is that humans have always ranked higher than

insects in the human pecking order. Although the Terran may have ranked lower than some

humans on Earth, since they fled Earth from enslavement, they still exercised their perceived

superior status to insects by displaying such little regard for insects that they could step on them

without just cause. Lien’s statement is anthropocentric because it suggests that within the human-

constructed binary of human/insect or human/nonhuman, the Terran is the superior of the two

species.

The text critiques anthropocentrism when Butler demonstrates what humans could

experience if they were treated in the same way that they have treated animals over the centuries.

When humans first arrived as refugees on the T’lic planet, the T’lic saw them “as not much more

than convenient, big, warm blooded animals. . . .” Gan explains that “they [T’lic] would pen

several of us [Terran] together, male and female. . . . That way they could be sure of getting
 Fields 28

another generation of us. . . . A few generations of it and we would have been little more than

convenient big animals” (Butler, “Bloodchild” 9-10). The description of humans inside of a pen

displays the objectifying nature of imbalanced relationships. It also alludes to the treatment of

domesticated animals such as pigs and chickens. The image of the Terran confined to a particular

space for the purpose of reproduction provokes one to rethink the treatment of animals as

livestock, and it “functions as an implicit critique of the ways humans conscript animals into

abusive systems” (Magnone 113).

Furthermore, Butler continues to draw similarities between the relationship that humans

have with domesticated animals on Earth and the one that they share with the T’lic when Gan

describes how T’Gatoi interacts with his family. He explains that T’Gatoi considers his house

her “second home” and that she comes in the house, sits on a couch that is specifically made for

her body, and calls him “over to keep her warm,” because the T’lic enjoy the temperature of

human bodies (Butler, “Bloodchild” 4). The image of a Terran warming a large insect

automatically calls attention to human-centered relationships with domesticated animals. T’Gatoi

interacts with her human family in such a way that “she manages them with the affectionate . . .

attitude a human might display toward a beloved pet” (Magnone 115). T’Gatoi’s attitude is

depicted when she uses her limbs to push Gan onto the floor and says, “‘Go on, Gan . . . Lien,

come warm me’” (Butler, “Bloodchild” 5). In this scene, the Terran are treated similarly to the

way in which humans treat domesticated animals, especially in the way that T’Gatoi gives verbal

commands to Gan and his mother, Lien.

In the relationship with the T’lic, the Terran no longer occupy the dominant part in the

human/nonhuman binary. Humans practiced the same anthropocentric behavior as was carried

out on Earth when they first arrived on the planet by attempting to kill the T’lic, but the
 Fields 29

dynamics on the T’lic planet place humans in a vulnerable predicament. The Terran do not

occupy a space in T’lic world where they can dictate the terms of survival. Instead, humans are

in a position of servitude, where they become “more serviceable for the dominant Tlic; like

domesticated animals on Earth” (Magnone 108). The relationship of reciprocity and service

between the T’lic and the humans is one that is more balanced than previously experienced by

humans with any other species on Earth.

Although it may seem as though the T’lic completely dominate the Terran at many points

in the narrative, the T’lic and the Terran eventually progress toward a more balanced

relationship. Both species begin to grant the other personhood. However, the process toward a

stabilized relationship, where the Terran are no longer treated as livestock and the T’lic are not

seen as insects, does not occur without discord. As previously mentioned above, Gan describes

how, at first, humans were caged and treated like livestock because of their reproductive

capabilities. Such treatment of the Terran substantiates Gan’s feelings that the Terran were

nothing more than “convenient, big animals” to the T’lic (Butler, “Bloodchild” 10). On the other

hand, T’Gatoi explains that in the beginning, the T’lic saw the Terran as “people,” even though

the Terran tried to kill them as “worms” (25). Gan’s description of being a “warm blooded

animal”, Lien’s reference to the T’lic as an insect that she should have “stepped” on, and the

T’lic-enforced caging of the Terran confirms that both species, initially, dehumanized each other.

The relationship between both species gradually changes, though. From the initial arrival

of the Terran on the T’lic planet to the joining of Terran and T’lic families, the terms of the

relationship between both species shift from parasitism to mutualism, where the Terran perform

the duty of a symbiotic partner with the T’lic. Mutualism is a relationship that benefits the parties

involved; whereas, parasitism “benefits one and harms another” (Magnone 107). When humans
 Fields 30

are the beneficiary in parasitic relationships, they inhabit a space of dominance in human-

constructed binaries. In the narrative, Butler demotes the human to a role that is not dominant

and not totally subordinate. This implies that in order to dismantle the human/nonhuman

dichotomy, the Terran cannot play the role of the beneficiary in a parasitic relationship; instead,

they must occupy a position of servitude, which changes the dynamics of the relationship

between human and nonhuman species. In doing so, Butler situates the human characters in a

mutualistic arrangement, where humans must pay for their habitation on the T’lic planet, thereby

decentering the human.

The shift from parasitism to mutualism can be seen by the language that the Terran and

the T’lic use in reference to one another and by the change in the dynamics of their relationship.

By the time the T’lic and the humans join as family members, the Terran are referring to the

T’lic as people/person. For example, Gan recounts how his mother told him that “It was an honor

. . . that such a person [T’Gatoi] had chosen to come into the family” (Butler, “Bloodchild” 5).

This indicates that at a certain point in the relationship with the T’lic, humans began viewing the

T’lic as more than large insects.

At the same time, the Terran were no longer treated as livestock once they became family

members with the T’lic. Another example of the shift in the relationship between the two species

is when Gan exercises agency over himself when he says to T’Gatoi, “‘I don’t want to be a host

animal. . . . Not even yours.’” T’Gatoi’s reply is, “‘We use almost no host animals these

days. . . . We wait long years for you and teach you and join our families to yours. . . . You know

you aren’t animals to us’” (Butler, “Bloodchild” 24). This scene depicts the change that occurs in

the relationship between the T’lic and the Terran over the years. T’Gatoi allows Gan to choose

whether he wants to host or not, which is an indication that T’Gatoi respects Gan as a person
 Fields 31

who is no longer perceived as an animal that “can be seized and used at will” (Magnone 107).

When humans first arrived, they did not have the privilege or personhood to reject hosting T’lic

eggs. Thus, the relationship between the T’lic and Terran moves from parasitism to mutualism at

the point in which the two species regard and treat one another as persons. This shift is an

indication of the process that must take place in order to move from the anthropocentric to the

post-anthropocentric via interspecies symbiosis.

As much as “Bloodchild” is a story of interspecies symbiosis, it is a provocation for a

discourse on gender. Butler reorients human gender constructs by situating terrestrial characters

in a foreign environment, where interspecies symbiosis requires the Terran males to conform to a

gender role that was reserved for female terrestrials on Earth. Butler suggests, through the

framework of the narrative, that gender constructs are fluid and mutable, thereby, “radically

incredible” (J. Butler 180). In doing so, she also challenges human notions of biological

essentialism.

Such notions of biological essentialism are exemplified throughout the text when the

characters discuss the responsibility of the Terran male to host T’lic larvae. The male Terran are

chosen to host T’lic larvae so that human females can birth their own offspring. Even though the

T’lic do not assign human males to host because of any specific link to gender roles, the act of

birthing is still associated with human females, as is demonstrated when Gan and his brother,

Qui, discuss hosting. Qui states with “contempt,” that “‘They don’t take women’” (Butler,

“Bloodchild” 21). Qui’s statement implies that human males find it problematic that they must

perform an act that has historically been carried out by human females. However, the

performance of gender between the sexes is different within the T’lic species, since neither male
 Fields 32

nor female T’lic gives birth. Therefore, the T’lic do not share in the same gender constructs as

humans, and they do not accommodate human, cultural practices of gender either.

Before the arrival of humans, the T’lic utilized an animal, regardless of sex, to host their

larvae. With the arrival of the Terran, the T’lic exhibit the same objectivity, with regard to

gender, in choosing to impregnate human males, which disrupts human notions of practicing

gender. The act of impregnating human males also challenges biological essentialism in that it

defies the “biology-is-destiny formulation” and makes a “distinction between sex and gender” (J.

Butler 9). It also suggests that sex does not determine gender or performative acts associated

with a gender, which is why Terran males can host T’lic offspring.

Although the assignment of human males as host is an objective choice and has nothing

to do with any perceived notions of gender on the part of the T’lic, Gan struggles with his duty as

host to T’Gatoi’s larvae because he witnesses a birth-gone-wrong with Bram Lomas. He even

resorts to agreeing with T’Gatoi, temporarily, to use his sister, Xuan Hoa, since, as T’Gatoi

states, “‘It will be easier for Hoa. She has always expected to carry other lives inside her’”

(Butler, “Bloodchild” 26). T’Gatoi’s comment is a reflection of human gender constructs. Since

neither the male T’lic nor the female T’lic carry offspring, T’Gatoi is relying on what she has

learned about humans. Therefore, she assumes that the process will be easier for Hoa, since she

has the anatomy to carry human fetuses. Gan confirms such gender constructs in a conversation

with Qui:

“She wouldn’t take you, Qui. You don’t have to worry.”

“She would . . . if anything happened to you.”

“No, She’d take Xuan Hoa. Hoa . . . wants it.” . . .

“They don’t take women. . . .”

 Fields 33

“They do sometimes . . . Actually, they prefer women. . . . They say women have more

body fat to protect the grubs. . . .” (20)

The dialogue between the two brothers is riddled with biological essentialism in that Gan thinks

it necessary to calm his brother’s fears about the possibility of ever being chosen to host. He

assures Qui that their sister would do it willingly if for some reason Gan became unable to host.

This also implies that they think the female body is biologically equipped for any birth, even a

birth as gruesome as Bram Lomas’s birth, which entailed a T’lic cutting the torso area of a

Terran male in order to extract the grubs. The brothers think it more fitting for the female body

to endure the surgery. Throughout the story, T’Gatoi, Qui, and Gan speak for Hoa. The reader

never knows exactly what Hoa wants or expects, except from the statements of unwilling

participants and T’Gatoi, who’s procreative ability is contingent upon inserting her larvae into a

warm-blooded body. T’Gatoi does not mention Hoa, until Gan refuses to host, which suggests

that T’Gatoi is desperate for a host at that point. So, how accurate are the statements of the

characters who assume Hoa would welcome the duty to host?

The references to Hoa throughout the text are not an accurate representation of Hoa’s

expectations upon her own body. Instead, the statements are a reflection of gender as biological

determinism. Judith Butler explicates the construction of gender when she states:

the notion that gender is constructed suggests a certain determinism of gender meanings

inscribed on anatomically differentiated bodies, where those bodies are understood as

passive recipients of an inexorable cultural law. When the relevant “culture” that

“constructs” gender is understood in terms of such law or set of laws, then it seems that

gender is as determined and fixed as it was under the biology-is-destiny formulation. In

such a case, not biology, but culture, becomes destiny. (J. Butler 14)
 Fields 34

Butler challenges normative cultural expectations on gender by impregnating her male

characters, and requiring them to do the work for which their female counterparts are believed to

be better suited. The characters’ statements are a reflection of those “laws” that were once

practiced within the human population before they fled to the T’lic planet. The symbiotic

relationship between the Terran and the T’lic challenges the human notion of the fixity of gender

constructs and proposes that gender is not immutable or a biological determinant, since Terran

males are successful at hosting T’lic offspring. This suggests that the male and female can

perform acts that were once assigned to only one of the genders.

The idea that gender is not a biological determinant is further played out in Gan’s account

of receiving T’Gatoi’s larvae. Gan takes his clothes off and lies beside T’Gatoi on a couch in his

bedroom when T’Gatoi starts “the blind probing of her ovipositor.” He further describes the

“puncture” as “painless . . . easy going in,” and T’Gatoi “undulates slowly against” Gan’s naked

body (Butler, “Bloodchild” 27). As phallic as T’Gatoi may seem to a human, with her probing

ovipositor and her undulating movements, this scene suggests that the act of penetration is

neither male nor female and that any gender can be the recipient of penetration, which has been

culturally assigned to the male sex as a performative gender act. Although T’Gatoi is female, she

has a phallic body part that inserts genetic material, and she performs an act that is associated

with the male body, while still maintaining her female pronoun. Gan’s pronoun remains

masculine throughout the text, which also indicates that persons who identify as male can receive

penetration. Hence, the narrative framework of “Bloodchild” insists that “gender can be neither

true nor false, neither real nor apparent, neither original nor derived,” and that “gender reality is

created through sustained social performances” (J. Butler 180). The T’lic introduce new ideas of

practicing gender to the Terran males. The female T’lic performs both masculine and feminine
 Fields 35

gender acts that have been culturally assigned to either one of two human genders. The creation

of the female T’lic encourages a reading of gender that is inclusive of nonconforming gender

identities. The narrative also suggests that anatomy does not dictate gender or the performance of

it.

Conclusion

“Bloodchild” and Dawn advocate for the plurality of the human, while calling for a halt

to anthropocentrism, as it relates to nonhuman species. Both texts also offer perspectives that

surpass the boundaries of a single literary approach and open the doors to different aspects of

posthumanism. In addition to the various literary approaches that the texts invite, they reimagine

gender by complicating the human notion of the gender binary. In doing so, Butler comments on

the fluidity of gender, while illuminating nonbinary gender identities and expressions.

Overall, these particular texts are revolutionary in that they demand an end to the

mistreatment of humans and animals and to the logic that contributes to such practices.

Furthermore, they suggest that we reinvent our notion of the human for the benefit of all beings

that inhabit the planet. Otherwise, practices of discrimination and the misuse of resources,

especially those that come from animals, could lead to destruction and war.
 Fields 36

Works Cited

Braidotti, Rosi. The Posthuman. Polity Press, 2013.

Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversive of Identity. Routledge, 1999.

Butler, Octavia E. “Bloodchild.” Bloodchild and Other Stories. Four Walls Eight

Windows, 2012, pp. 3-32.

---. Dawn. Lilith’s Brood. Grand Central Publishing, 2007, pp. 5-248.

Butler, Octavia, E. Interview with Charlie Rose. episode 9409, PBS, 1 June, 2000.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=66pu-Miq4tk.

Butler, Octavia E., and Stephen W. Potts. "'We Keep Playing the Same Record': A Conversation

with Octavia E. Butler." Contemporary Literary Criticism, edited by Jeffrey W. Hunter

and Polly Vedder, vol. 121, Gale, 2000. Gale Literature Resource Center,

Originally published in Science-Fiction . Studies, vol. 23, no. 70, Nov. 1996, pp. 331-

338.

David, Marlo D. Mama’s Gun: Black Maternal Figures and the Politics of Transgression. Ohio

State UP, 2016.

Ferrando, Francesca. Philosophical Posthumanism. Bloomsbury Academic, 2019. E-book,

978-1-3500-5949-8.

Franklin, John Hope and Alfred A. Moss Jr. From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African

Americans. 8th ed., McGraw-Hill, 2000.

Gates, Henry, Louis, Jr. “Writing ‘Race’ and the Difference It Makes.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 12,

no. 1, The University of Chicago Press, 1985, pp. 1-20.

Great Slave Narratives. Introduction by Arna Bontempts, Beacon Press, 1969.

Helford, Elyce Rae. “ ‘Would You Really Rather Die Than Bear My Young?’: The Construction
 Fields 37

of Gender, Race, and Species in Octavia E. Butler’s ‘Bloodchild’.” African America

Review, vol. 28, n. 2, 1994, pp. 259-71.

Magnone, Sophia B. “How to Love Your Livestock: Negotiating Domestic Partnership in the

Multispecies World of ‘Bloodchild’.” Palimpest: A Journal of Women, Gender, and the

Black International, vol. 6, no. 2, 2017, pp. 106-128.

Narrative of Sojourner Truth. Edited with an Introduction by Margaret Washington, Vintage

Books, 1993.

Peppers, Cathy. “Dialogic Origins and Alien Identities in Butler's Xenogenesis.” Science Fiction

Studies, vol. 22, no. 1, 1995, pp. 47–62. JSTOR.

Said, Edward. Humanism and Democratic Criticism. Columbia University Press, 2004.